From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 21:51:13 -0500

Jan,

I take your point, but I am puzzled by why you brought it up here. Is
there any suggestion that traditional models are somehow more pure
than OA? I don't see that here. The context, as I understood it, is
that some people were asking if editors got paid and other responded
by saying that, yes, they did.

Joe Esposito


On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 8:55 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 09:53:14 +0100
>
> "Larger journals (measured by income) pay more."
>
> This is generally true. It is also not unlikely to be a factor in
> Editors' acceptance/rejection policies. Selectivity and prestige are
> important, but income, particularly when it is "per accepted paper" or
> "by published volume", as it often enough is, is likely to be too,
> especially if the payment is substantial. The idea that only
> APC-funded open access journals might possibly suffer from this
> phenomenon is a myth.
>
> Jan Velterop
>
> On 07/01/2019 23:37, LIBLICENSE wrote:
> From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 11:35:34 -0500
>
> I have yet to encounter an STM publisher that did not pay the editors
> of its journals. In HSS the situation is not uniform. Larger journals
> (measured by income) pay more.
>
> Joe Esposito
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 8:46 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2019 16:51:24 -0500
>
> The issue of editor compensations (or whatever they may be called) has
> long been a point of high interest that still remains obscure. It is
> of high interest because it lies exactly at the intersection of the
> financial and the intellectual dimensions of scientific publishing. it
> is part of the "entanglement" issue raised by Aileen Fyfe and her
> colleagues (https://zenodo.org/record/546100#.WhSeiWMW38t).
>
> In an example I heard years ago, the compensation was so much per
> peer-reviewed article.  Information is much needed on this point.
> Opacity does not agree easily with appeals to market rules.
>
> Jean-Claude Guédon
>
>
> Le dimanche 06 janvier 2019 à 16:25 -0500, LIBLICENSE a écrit :
> From: leo waaijers <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2019 22:09:28 +0100
>
> Dear Anthony,
>
> No, I have no special evidence. I simply referred to an article I
> thought might be interesting to the list. And yes, I know the
> journalist well enough (1) to believe him when he says that he has his
> information ‘on good authority’, and (2) to know that he will not
> share his source with me.
>
> In the meantime, your information about editors receiving substantial
> payments triggered a question. Where would the loyalty of these
> editors go in the sometimes heated debate between research funders and
> publishers about OA or Plan S?
>
> Leo